Would the S-197 look better as a full/true fastback ?
- Thread starter red05bullitgt
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
Believe me, If I were able to swing it financially ! I would own that car..
It really sucks, when all you can afford..are monthly car payments..
It really sucks, when all you can afford..are monthly car payments..
kooldawg6
mine works really well and can take a fair amount
However IMHO.. I don't believe a 67-68 fastback style, would look right on the current Stang, unless the car's beltline is lowered.. as it currently sits too high as is.
Otherwise, both the rear glass and trunk sections..will appear to look way too high/flat..
Perhaps these are some of Ford's reasons, for not designing the current Mustang as a full fastback..
Here is a '06 beside a '66. It is clear to see how much taller the S197 is and how adding more to the back half would make it even bulkier.
Attachments
226embarcadero
New Member
226embarcadero
New Member
Here is a '06 beside a '66. It is clear to see how much taller the S197 is and how adding more to the back half would make it even bulkier.
A '66 is not really a good example because, personally, I don't like them nearly as much as the 67-69s.
Compare an S197 with a '67 or '69 fastback
Attachments
What's the difference ? as the waistline on the 65-66..is the same height as the 67-69's anyhow...
Therefore, if you compare the S-197 with either 65-66, or 67-68 fastback..The height difference will remain the same..
No matter how you look at it..The waistline on the S-197 needs to be lowered, otherwise it's just as Kooldawg posted.. the rear section would look way too bulky..
Ice Hawk
New Member
WOW. I love this thread. There are some really talented people out there. My fav so far is the Dark Blue w/ SHR qtrs and "badge" effect on the 302. The waist and tail are perfect for what we have to work with on the platform. Good job! 
Neither the 67 or the 69 are close enough in line design to compare to the S197. The roof lines are slanted at a sweeping degree where the S197 follows a shorter, sharper slant degree from the rear roof to trunk panel. The 67 has no rear passenger window and the 69 has no pillar separation at the passenger window.
The S197 is a metamorphosis between modern and classic. I really can't think of a single element from any of the classic generations that is conducive to repetition on the S197. I personally believe Ford designed it fairly well as incepted.
'67
'69
Jenns05Stang - Gone, but not forgotten.
He was fine, just the way he was. 
The S197 is a metamorphosis between modern and classic. I really can't think of a single element from any of the classic generations that is conducive to repetition on the S197. I personally believe Ford designed it fairly well as incepted.
'67
'69
Jenns05Stang - Gone, but not forgotten.
He was fine, just the way he was.
I couldn't agree more, as Ford took design elements from (65-66) Shelby quarter windows (67-68) dash/gauges/hood/grille/headlights/fogs, and (69-70) tail lights..
Thus, the S-197 is indeed.. a metamorphosis between modern and classic design, in which gives the car it's own unique identity...While at the same time, remaining true to it's heritage..
As one thing is for certain ! at least nobody can accuse Ford, of attempting to duplicate it's success, from any of their classic designs lol.
Thus, the S-197 is indeed.. a metamorphosis between modern and classic design, in which gives the car it's own unique identity...While at the same time, remaining true to it's heritage..
As one thing is for certain ! at least nobody can accuse Ford, of attempting to duplicate it's success, from any of their classic designs lol.
226embarcadero
New Member
Just about the ONLY thing I don't really like about the s197 is the Tail Lamps. They could have made them look so much more aggressive. The 3 vertical lights should be separated and distinguished from one another. The way Ford did it, it looks like one big light with two lines down the center.
I am surprised no one has developed an aftermarket tail light that more closely resembles a 67-69.
